Currently this page provides explanation to some repeated questions raised by those who are contemplating purchasing the book.

Yes, they have.

The result being?

There are those with scientific credentials who use these credentials as a buffer against the knowledge provided in the book, in a manner of a crucifix thrust at a sinner. Others have been more considerate and thoughtful, admitting that a lot of what they currently know is very vague, and being cautiously impressed by what they had learned in the book. On the whole, physicists and mathematicians don't mind stating what they believe – just like religious theists. The pity is that why they consider themselves to be seekers of physical truth, in reality – just like theists – they tend to invent and believe in notions based on physically impossibility, because (with very rare exceptions) they tend to accept "as gospel" all that they are taught, without questioning the lack of physical validity to the information they are taught.

One of more interesting interactions has been with Professor Ian Durham, Ph.D., FRAS – a lecturer of quantum mechanics at a US university – with whom a correspondence had been maintained over a number of months.

Initially, prior to reading of the book, the attitude of the professor was smug, with use of remarks such as: "Dude, what are you freakin' smoking?"

Having read the book, his attitude and views had substantially altered. Instead of being absolutely defensive, his attitude became more passive. And more civil. No longer the shouts in capitals, and the emphasizing with asterisks and stars.

Currently, the professor has chosen to retain his belief that the nothingness of vacuum space is capable of being curved and bent, forming holes of nothingness within the nothingness of vacuum space, with his stance being: "Oh, and no physicist today truly believes the vacuum space is truly a vacuum. We don't even call it that any more."

Such opinions, which are part of theories of 'Relativity" and Quantum Physics, are retained by all current physicists, despite that such notions are actually contrary to basic logic, which is supported by the simplest of arithmetic. For while in arithmetic it is taught that no number can be subtracted from a nothingness of a zero (0), and that a nothingness of a zero (0) cannot be divided or multiplied, is seems that these physical realities do not apply to physics – as far as physicists are concerned – for according to their theories the nothingness of vacuum space of a zero (0) can be divided and multiplied.

There is, however, another popular misconception that physicists (and all humans) currently accept as being a physical reality, and incorporate into their theories: this notion is that of physical "time". It is this notion – the physical existence of "time" – that professor Durham has refused to reaffirm on record, after having read the book. No matter how much I had tried – by various means – to have the professor repeat and confirm his initial belief that physical "time" physically exists, he just would not do so.

What this means, is that after having read the 'Revelations', professor Durham had come to realize that physical "time" cannot physically exist (exactly as explained in the book why "time" cannot, and does not physically exist.) But he cannot confirm aloud this realization, because to do so would, in turn, lead to doubts about all else he believes as a physicist. For if "time" does not physically exist, then there is no physical existence to "space-time continuum", upon which all current physics is based.

For all those reading these revelations – especially those who consider themselves to be well versed in science – a sudden realization that their long-held beliefs are based on various physical impossibilities does not cause them to publically question and reject them. Instead, they try to deal with this dilemma privately, by refusing to acknowledge these realizations publicly.

For scholars and scientist such situation is hardly surprising. In this book they come across information that overturns their current erroneous perceptions; but due to their official positions in the scientific and education fraternity, they are incapable of voicing their doubts about the currently accepted views of physics and science. So they hold their tongues, because at stake are their reputations, incomes, remunerations, and research fundings. All this was bluntly put to the good professor, to which he also presented no defence, knowing full well that this is a physical truth that he could not deny.

Basically, the physical fact of human education is that: whatever training a child and a young adult receives, these then – with few and seldom exceptions – become the accepted views of that person for the rest of their lives. A religious influence in education produces a generation of theists believing in god, or gods; an influence in education of flawed science produces generations of physicists who believe in their notions of physical existence of "time" and in vacuum nothingness of space that supposedly can distort, bend, and form cavities and holes.

Both factions claim their beliefs represent physical reality that can be supported by logic. But despite that neither their gods or their phisical "time" had never been physically witnessed or experienced, they continue to influence the rest of human population – including you – to accept their "emperors's new clothes"; this made possible by current human education that encourages human ignorance and naive gullibility, by upholding an assumption that "believing" is equivalent to "knowing" – which it is not. Were "knowing" to be a prime factor in all human sciences and lives, then the potential of human existence would not be in jeopardy it is today.

The best way to explain the “knowledge-of-all”, is to state that it is: all that physically is you, and all that physically surrounds you; as well as, the reason why all that surround you physically behave as they do; why you physically behave as you do; the reason why you think as you do; and the reason why all these factors had resulted in human societies being what they are. Seriously.

The amusing side to this question: it is as if a book should have been produced to explain what the ‘Revelations of a Human Space Navigator’ was all about. But then there would have been a need to have yet another book to explain that book.

It is obviously so much easier to attempt to discredit the existence of god – as has been done by other authors – rather then state that it is possible to prove that gods do not physically exist, by providing knowledge of why gods cannot physically exist.

To explain the title is to explain the book. It is not about science-fiction exploration of cosmos, but an accurate description of any life form physical existence.

It is perfectly true that I have no fame, fortune, or even high ranks of academia. But I have yet to meet a single human who was born with a word, "famous", "rich", or "genius" emblazoned on their forehead.

We, as humans, are all born different but also the same. In our differences, there are some who have varying levels of ability to understanding all that which physically surrounds us. This happens to be my ability. For most of my life I had lived without disclosing this information. Now the moment has arrived for this knowledge to be revealed.

When Copernicus and Columbus made their respective claims, they had no fame, fortune, or even high ranks of academia. They made their fearless claims because they were interested in physical truth (and in case of Columbus, wealth). There are many who seek knowledge without the need of fame, fortune, or even academia. I happen to be one of those.

And how dare I compare myself to Copernicus and Columbus? Because we, as humans, are all different but also the same. Besides, I happen to know all that they never knew.

"What gives you the right to make such preposterous claims?"

If we, humans, kept all our opinions to ourselves, as all other life forms do – for none of them can communicate on human level (incidentally, by their own choice) – we would be in a different environment to which we are in now. But as that is not the case, all those reading the book would learn that only humans have a right of an expressive choice, and why this is so. It is this ability that gives me – as a human – the right of expression.

In having the right, as a human, to express what I know – irrespective of how strange or preposterous that which I express may sound to those unfamiliar with that knowledge – all those who may disagree with what I say have the right to disagree. But they should do this informatively. They first have to examine my revelations, and only then voice their opinions. Without doing so, all those disagreeing with what the book reveals would be displaying either their arrogant ignorance.

From my personal experience, I know that theists (who believe in gods) and atheists (who claim not to believe in gods) have much in common: both factions use belief – and not knowledge – as a method of supporting their perceptions.

Humans, as the only species on Earth having an ability of imagination and belief, can use their imaginations to believe in anything they want: be it a cow jumping over the moon; a spirit residing in a tree; a god existing in heaven. But just because none of the theist beliefs ever physically become a physical reality – for they cannot, due to being merely human fantasies – this does not prevented the belivers of these fantasies to invent more and more intricate excuses and reasons as to why their beliefs do not physically become realized, and present themselves to be physically examined by one and all.

Atheists are as much believers in fantasies of their own making as theists. They may claim not to believe in gods, but they nevertheless maintain the beliefs they share with theists. For instance, they believe in a physical existence of 'time': an entity which can never present itself physically, as it does not physically exist. It is merely a human invention, just like their invention of gods.

Many atheists consider themselves as being more rational and knowledgeable than theists. They point to current science and proclaim theists to be backward and ignorant. They themselves, however, are just as backward and ignorant as the theists – the only difference is that they don't even know it. They believe that their (flawed) version of sciences, such as that of current physics, shall provide them with the answers they seek, as in: proving that gods do not physically exist. Wrong. Beliefs, be they in religion or sciences, cannot physically produce that which does not physically exists. That is why gods – any gods – can be disproved only when all the beliefs are discarded, for then all that remains – no matter how incredible – is the physical truth. A physical truth that is not distorted or warped by any human inventions provided by their imaginations.

This is the basis on which I state what I know. I do not exercise any beliefs. I know that gods do not exist because I know exactly why they could not, and cannot, physically exist. This approach to knowledge is not to the liking of atheists. They don't appreciate learning that the science they rely on is flawed.

Furthermore, because they don't even know who and what they are as human beings, they behave exactly according to that which maintains their ignorance, and so they prefer to reject the information that proves the non-existence of gods without even examining it. And while they may consider themselves as astute skeptics, skeptics who refuse to examine knowledge before passing informed judgement are merely ignoramuses.

For all these reasons, should I be classified according to my position of understanding of all that physically surrounds me, I would say that I am a physicalist.